Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Neil Roberts

Members
  • Posts

    710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Neil Roberts

  1. 1. Was FAR 52.244-2 included in your prime contract? Does it apply to the contemplated subcontract type, etc. Can we assume your company does not have an approved purchasing system? 2. What is the basis for DCMA having any contract right to "deny your sole source justification?" Perhaps a contracting officer might not approve the subcontract for consent per 52.244-2, but I never heard of DCMA having any right to be involved with denying any subcontract. What are the prime contract terms and conditions that establish such a right? 3. Whatever your written procedures say about how to accomplish solicitations and source selection is what your should do.
  2. My suggestion is to review the subcontract for language controlling billing/payment/invoices. If that language prohibits them from doing so, reject the invoice and explain the rationale. If not, and your company retained the contract right to examine its books and records, you may seek approval from the sub to engage a 3rd party to verify correctness of the invoice, provided the 3rd party signs an agreement with the sub not to disclose G&A details.
  3. Are you questioning the Quick Closeout language in FAR.42.708..."(a) The contracting officer responsible for contract closeout shall negotiate (emphasis added) the settlement of direct and indirect costs for a specific contract, task order, or delivery order to be closed, in advance of the determination of final direct costs and indirect rates set forth in 42.705..." Seems to me you can include language in the submittal that indicates the facts to date regarding rates as indicated above. I would request contracting officer written clarification that the government wishes to proceed with 42.708 and 42.705-1 Contracting Officer Determination Procedure. It appears that contracting officers should coordinate with other government functions, that may be backed up with work.
  4. 9.409 Contract clause is as follows: The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.209-6, Protecting the Government’s Interests when Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment, in solicitations and contracts where the contract value exceeds $35,000. 52.209-6 is in part as follows: (c) The Contractor shall require each proposed subcontractor whose subcontract will exceed the threshold specified in FAR 9.405-2(b) on the date of subcontract award, other than a subcontractor providing a commercially available off-the-shelf item, to disclose to the Contractor , in writing , whether as of the time of award of the subcontract , the subcontractor , or its principals, is or is not debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment by the Federal Government. The procurement system for a prime contractor I worked for required all suppliers to register in SAM and monitored debarred, suspended or proposed for debarment information from SAM daily and where it matched up to a supplier in the system, a subcontract to be awarded would not generate. The system required every supplier be formally in the system. Also, a certification regarding debarred, suspended or proposed for debarment status was required as part of the solicitation.
  5. I was unable to locate language in 13 CFR 121.404 that would help me respond to your posting. You may wish to consider contacting SBA directly.
  6. Could you perhaps clarify your post? It looks like three questions were intended. What is the question in number 1 and 2? In question number 3, what are you referring to with respect to "[d]oes it matter?" Ideas about what?
  7. I would want to make sure my proposal was compliant with current cost or pricing data requirements, if they were applicable, and any requirements relating to applicable cost accounting standards.
  8. This is what you said @here_2_help: "Thought I would add that there is a case that may be on point regarding what is "normal" in this context." So, in a nutshell,what is it that is on point and normal, and what was the actual holding of the case?
  9. @here_2_help, you are representing to the original poster that the case you cited may be a normal every day event in the life of government contractors and subcontractors. My experience is completely opposite that.
  10. The prime contractor costs involving bidding and finding/managing subcontracts are taken care of in the prime contract price between the prime contractor and the government. The amount is generally treated as proprietary and not disclosed to 3rd parties, like subcontractors. Whether it is better to be awarded a subcontract from a prime contractor or win contracts from the government is a business decision for the company. Whichever way is best for the company should win out as the model in order to be successful. I am familiar with companies that market themselves either way, whichever works best for the target customer situation.
  11. @here_2_help, in my experience the example you have given is not a subcontract arrangement. I see it as a collaboration effort on the contract side of the house. More like a partnership alliance.
  12. From my time in the prime contractor world of delivering end item goods to the Government, I offer the following response to your question: 1. I have never encountered or heard of any situation like that as an acceptable practice. Of course, prime contractors may well expect that its target price be reached in awarding or negotiating the subcontract, especially if the prime contractor could make the subcontracted work itself for less money than the subcontractor is proposing. 2. There are times where the government might find it advantageous (and sometime even the contractor may find it advantageous) for the government to contract directly with a subcontractor. But there may be unintended risks to the government. if the government contracted goods are an integrated with the prime contract end item but do not conform to contractor form, fit, function, quality or other significant requirements, the prime contractor would probably disavow liability and responsibility. Costs to resolve that type problem can exceed the "middleman savings." There are times where nothing goes wrong and there are savings.
  13. Yes, the current language was effective Jan 2022. I should have said that it was revised in January 2022. It looks like the language may not have been significantly changed in January 2022 from prior language. Not sure whether that makes it a stronger, weaker or same effect for @Loul.
  14. @loul, wonder whether or how the contract defines "telework" or the location where work is required to be performed. I say this because The Office of Personnel Management FAQ indicates that "The official definition of "telework" can be found in the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010: "[t]he term 'telework' or 'teleworking' refers to a work flexibility arrangement under which an employee performs the duties and responsibilities of such employee's position, and other authorized activities, from an approved worksite other than the location from which the employee would otherwise work." https://www.opm.gov/FAQs/QA.aspx?fid=b48bf83b-440c-4f1e-a88c-3cdc9d802ac8&pid=75346675-3b92-4aec-831d-58cf5b0e86d2 Seems to me, depending on the contract language, that you may be able to internally indicate that certain employees should normally perform all their work at home, and therefore take the position that such work is not telework.
  15. Just saying, in Jan 2022, 7.108 was added to FAR regarding telecommuting. Maybe you can make something of it in discussions even though it post dates your contract.
  16. Up until a few years ago, Hill Air Force Base maintained a search engine called FARsite. It included a display of class deviations (red font) integrated into the relevant DFARS clause(s). FARsite went away in favor of Acquisition.gov. FARsite was not considered official for DFARS, but it was most helpful.
  17. I believe that you and your customer should now negotiate a written contract with acceptable terms and conditions including price. Your reconfirming of price during the Pandemic may have created the impression that neither the Pandemic nor passage of time nor anything else had any significant affect on your prices.
  18. FAR 19.000(b) indicates that small business programs apply only in the United States... There is no language therein about "performance."
  19. @Tzarina of Compliance, FAR 52.219-xx clauses in a prime contract are the requirements for the contractor related to FAR Part 19. Is your concern about those requirements? Which one? Or are you a contracting officer concerned about something else in FAR Part 19, and if so, can you refer to the specific paragraph section that includes the requirements (and words) you are concerned about there?
  20. Hi Joel. I would say one government contract definition view of how "performance outside the United States" is seen. As a side comment, not quite sure to me whether the post is about "performance outside the United States," acquisition of services which are to be performed overseas," or "contract performed overseas," which are used in this post.
  21. For reference, Clause and Form for performance outside the United States https://www.acquisition.gov/dfars/252.225-7003-report-intended-performance-outside-united-states-and-canada—submission-offer.
  22. TNT1, TINA requires "current" facts and prices. Since your company prohibits new documentation, my position is that your company's Certificate may be questionable to your customer in the following way. The supplier cost or pricing data is not certified as current because that is new documentation.There will be no new documentation concerning potential competition or other non-competitive sources available after a 2 year gap that a prudent negotiator would want to know about. There will be no new documentation regarding assumptions or facts in the cost analysis that may be different 2 years later, which may include price analysis.
  23. Joel, why is a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data meaningless now (or in the future?)
  24. @Retreadfed, looks to me like the negotiations took place in connection with a current or future follow-on Government prime contract.
×
×
  • Create New...